Retired General Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence: “A gradual military intervention along the lines of the Libyan model of a Western aerial campaign seems the most effective response to the Syrian crisis.”

Amos Yadlin: Only bombing Assad’s forces will stop the slaughter nowIt need not become ‘another Iraq’ and the Syrian military challenge can be met. Indeed, examination indicates that six arguments propounded by opponents of Western military intervention do not hold much water, and instead suggests that Western inaction is likely to hasten the very scenario that opponents of military intervention seek to avoid.First, Syria need not become “another Iraq”. Those who resist intervention warn that military intervention might end in the West becoming mired in another Muslim country, on the heels of the unsuccessful Afghan and Iraqi experiences.

This argument belittles the West’s successful experience in Kosovo 20 years ago and in Libya in 2011, where intensive airpower removed Gaddafi, stopped the bloodbath, and enabled democratic elections.Moreover, a military intervention need not involve a ground invasion or even peacekeeping forces – which, in any case, would have little influence on Assad. The recommended model, built on the lessons of Iraq, is a Western aerial campaign that paves the way for regime change, as it did in Kosovo and in Libya. There are no “boots on the ground”, at least initially (and should that become necessary, Turkish forces should be assigned to this mission).

The suggested strategy in Syria is to use gradual steps to convince Assad that an international campaign is a credible option: from moving aircraft carriers to the region and Turkish ground forces to the border, to reconnaissance sorties, no-fly zones, and humanitarian corridors.Second, the Syrian military challenge can be met. Another argument postulates that the Syrian military presents a bigger threat to Western militaries than those confronted in Iraq and Libya. The Syrian defensive capability is not dramatically greater than Iraq’s of 1991 or 2003, which already included advanced Russian systems. As the Syrian military has been preoccupied with internal uprisings over the past year and a half, it is likely that its capabilities have even eroded.

Therefore, those who doubt the West’s capacity to face the current Syrian defence ignore the fact that Western power was built to cope with much greater challenges.Third, the lack of international consensus cannot justify passivity. Those who call for passivity in Syria claim that since there is no consensus among members of the UN Security Council and no explicit Arab League request, there is no legitimacy for foreign military intervention. These arguments ignore the moral obligation − the “Responsibility to Protect” principle − endorsed by the West. Finally, action in Syria might support the international campaign against Iran.

Those who oppose intervening contend that it would increase Middle East tensions, move Iran out of the international focus, and sharpen the rift between Russia and China and the other members of the P5+1 who lead the negotiations with Tehran.Acting in Syria however, could weaken, if not break, the nexus between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Palestinian terror organisations, and therefore likely contain Iranian influence in the Levant. This would have a dramatic impact on the balance of power between radical and pragmatic forces in the region. And it would signal to Iran the West’s resolve to back up its interests and threats with force.

A gradual military intervention along the lines of the Libyan model of a Western aerial campaign seems the most effective response to the Syrian crisis. Only if Assad assesses that Western intervention is a real threat might he abdicate and make room for leadership with better prospects for halting the violence. The West must not let unfounded fears guide its policy while atrocities in Syria continue.Amos Yadlin is Executive Director of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University and former Head of Military Intelligence of the Israeli Defence Forces

“We will never surrender; we win, or we die. And don’t think it stops there. You will have the next generation to fight, and after the next, the next. As for me, I will live longer than my hangman.”

Omar Al-Muktar, the leader of the Libyan struggle for freedom against the Italian fascists.

,,,

,,,

,,,

,,,

Omar Mukhtar (عمر المختار Omar Al-Mukhtār) (1862 – September 16, 1931), of the Mnifa, was born in the small village of Janzour, near Tobruk in eastern Barqa (Cyrenaica) in Libya. Beginning in 1912, he organized and, for nearly twenty years, led native resistance to Italian colonization of Libya. The Italians captured and hanged him in 1931.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Early life

Omar Almukhtar was born in eastern Cyrenaica, Al Butnan District, in the village of East Jaghbub east of Tobruk. He was orphaned early and was adopted by Sharif El Gariani, nephew of Hussein Ghariani, a political-religious leader in Cyrenaica. He received his early education at the local mosque and then studied for eight years at the Senussi university atJaghbub, which was also the headquarters of the Senussi Movement. In 1899 he was sent with other Senussi to assist Rabih az-Zubayr in the resistance in Chad against the French.

Italian invasion

In October 1911, during the Italo-Turkish War, an Italian naval contingent under the command of Admiral Luigi Faravelli reached the shores of Libya, then a territory subject to Ottoman Turkish control. The admiral demanded that the Turkish administration and garrison surrender their territory to the Italians or incur the immediate destruction of the city of Tripoli and Benghazi. The Turks and their Libyan allies withdrew to the countryside instead of surrendering, and the Italians bombarded the cities for three days, then proclaimed the Tripolitanians to be “committed and strongly bound to Italy.” This marked the beginning of a series of battles between the Italian colonial forces and the Libyan armed opposition in the East of Libya (Cyrenaica) under Omar Mukhtar for 22 years.

Guerrilla warfare

Main articles: Libyan resistance movement and History of Libya as Italian colony. A teacher of the Qur’an by profession, Mukhtar was also skilled in the strategies and tactics of desert warfare. He knew local geography well and used that knowledge to advantage in battles against the Italians, who were unaccustomed to desert warfare. Mukhtar repeatedly led his small, highly alert groups in successful attacks against the Italians, after which they would fade back into the desert terrain. Mukhtar’s men skillfully attacked outposts, ambushed troops, and cut lines of supply and communication. The Italian army was left astonished and embarrassed by his guerrilla tactics.

In the mountainous region of Ghebel Akhdar (“Green Mountain”) in 1924, Italian Governor Ernesto Bombelli created a counter-guerrilla force that inflicted a severe setback to rebel forces in April 1925. Mukhtar then quickly modified his own tactics and was able to count on continued help from Egypt. In March, 1927, despite occupation of Giarabub from February 1926 and increasingly stringent rule under Governor Attilio Teruzzi, Mukhtar surprised Italian troops at Raheiba. Between 1927 and 1928, Mukhtar fully reorganized the Senu site forces, who were being hunted constantly by the Italians. Even General Teruzzi recognized Omar’s qualities of “exceptional perseverance and strong will power.”

Pietro Badoglio, governor of Libya from January 1929, after extensive negotiations concluded a compromise with Mukhtar (described by the Italians as his complete submission) similar to previous Italo-Senusite accords. At the end of October, 1929, Mukhtar denounced the compromise and re-established a unity of action among Libyan forces, preparing himself for the ultimate confrontation with GeneralRodolfo Graziani, the Italian military commander from March 1930.

A massive offensive in June against Mukhtar’s forces having failed, Graziani, in full accord with Badoglio, Emilio De Bono (minister of the colonies), and Benito Mussolini, initiated a plan to break Cyrenian resistance: the hundred-thousand population of Gebel would be moved to concentration camps on the coast and the Libyan-Egyptian border from the coast at Giarabub would be closed, preventing any foreign help to the fighters and depriving them of support from the native population. These measures, which Graziani initiated early in 1931, took their toll on the Senusite resistance. The rebels were deprived of help and reinforcements, spied upon, hit by Italian aircraft, and pursued on the ground by the Italian forces aided by local informers and collaborators. Mukhtar continued to struggle despite increased hardships and risks, but on 11 September 1931, he was ambushed near Slonta.

Mukhtar’s final adversary, Italian General Rodolfo Graziani, has given a description of the Senusite leader that is not lacking in respect: “Of medium height, stout, with white hair, beard and mustache. Omar was endowed with a quick and lively intelligence; was knowledgeable in religious matters, and revealed an energetic and impetuous character, unselfish and uncompromising; ultimately, he remained very religious and poor, even though he had been one of the most important Senusist figures.” Today Mukhtar is a famous man in Libya.

Capture and execution

Mukhtar’s struggle of nearly twenty years came to an end on 11 September 1931, when he was wounded in battle near Slonta, then captured by the Italian army. The Italians treated the native leader hero as a prize catch. His resilience had an impact on his jailers, who later remarked upon his steadfastness. His interrogators stated that Mukhtar recited verses of peace from the Qur’an.

In three days, Mukhtar was tried, convicted, and, on 14 September 1931, sentenced to be hanged publicly (historians and scholars have questioned whether his trial was fair or impartial). When asked if he wished to say any last words, Mukhtar replied with a Qur’anic phrase: “Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un.” (“To God we belong and to Him we shall return.”).

On September 16, 1931, on the orders of the Italian court and with Italian hopes that Libyan resistance would die with him, Mukhtar was hanged before his followers in the concentration camp of Suluq at the age of 70 years.

Legacy

Today, Mukhtar’s face appears on the Libyan ten-dinar bill.

His final years were depicted in the movie Lion of the Desert (1981), starring Anthony Quinn, Oliver Reed, and Irene Papas. It was based on the struggles of Mukhtar against Rodolfo Graziani’s forces.

In 2009, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi wore a photograph of Mukhtar in Italian captivity on his chest while on a state visit to Rome, and brought along Mukhtar’s elderly son during the visit.

With the Libyan civil war beginning 17 February 2011, Omar Mukhtar again became a symbol for a united, free Libya and his picture is depicted on various flags and posters of the Free Libya movement. Rebel forces named one of their brigades the “Omar Mukhtar brigade” after him.

A street is named after Mukhtar in the Gaza Strip. It’s known locally as The Street of Omar Al Mukhtar.

P.S. Message to All Zionist and Fasiest and Nazi’s and Dictator’s and Invaders

We are collecting and publishing the videos of destruction engineered by the US & NATO forces on Libya. 2011 Civil War of Libya is arranged by Jewish Backed Western forces. As my friend Scott Rickard says, “ Libya was a rich and successful country. No homelessness or hunger issues. Free education, healthcare, electric and water. Gas under one dollar a gallon. $50,000 gift to married couples to buy their first home.” Let us see in these videos what is Libya now;

The 2011 Libyan civil war was an armed conflict in Libya being fought between US and NATO forces, forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi and his regime and those seeking to depose him being played by the Israeli, British and US govt.

The situation began on 15 February 2011 as a series of terrorist protests which were met with military force by the Gaddafi Govt. The protests escalated into…

The head of the British armed forces has said Nato must intensify its military campaign in Libya by easing the restrictions on bombing targets.

General Sir David Richards told the Sunday Telegraph direct attacks should be launched against the infrastructure propping up Colonel Gaddafi’s regime.

He said it was necessary to prevent the Libyan dictator remaining in power.

The UK and other countries have been bombing Libya under a UN resolution authorising force to protect civilians.

The Security Council resolution authorises “all necessary measures” to protect civilians under threat of attack – short of an occupying force.

The views of Gen Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff, are said to be supported by other senior Nato officers.

They argue increasing the range of targets from direct threats such as tanks and command sites would be legitimate, but would require the backing of member states.

‘Within rules’

Col Gaddafi’s removal is not a specified military objective of the action.

But in the interview with the Telegraph, Gen Richards said it would be “within the rules” should he be killed in a strike on a command and control centre.

He said the “vice is closing on Gaddafi but we need to increase the pressure further through more intense military action”.

He said: “The military campaign to date has been a significant success for Nato and our Arab allies. But we need to do more.

“If we do not up the ante now there is a risk that the conflict could result in Gaddafi clinging to power.

“At present, Nato is not attacking infrastructure targets in Libya. But if we want to increase the pressure on Gaddafi’s regime then we need to give serious consideration to increasing the range of targets we can hit.”

Gen Richards added there had been “hardly any civilian casualties as a result of the extreme care Nato has taken in the selection of bombing targets”.

His comments come as a Nato official said it was aware of Libyan state media reports that as many as 11 clerics were killed in its strike on the town of Brega but insisted that a “clearly identified” military command and control site had been targeted.

Meanwhile, Col Gaddafi has taunted Nato troops in an audio message on state TV, saying he was in a place where they “cannot reach” him.